Since January of 2008, this nationally recognized blog has been dedicated to following the very latest news regarding presidential pardons and the pardon power (or clemency powers) as exercised in each state. Reader comments are certainly welcomed but a premium will be placed on civility, relevance and originality. Please refrain from extended copying and pasting.

TERMS TO KNOW

AMNESTY - A general or group pardon that is usually granted before conviction. This power is most commonly associated with post-war clemency, for draft evasion, sedition or other violations of selective service laws. Amnesties may or may not be conditional

CLEMENCY - At the federal level, this is a broad term which is interpreted to include all of the other terms defined in this section. Sometimes, "clemency" is described as "the pardon power," which is acceptable, so long as it is understood that, formally speaking, a pardon is one of several forms of clemency. Clemency powers can be found in all three branches of the federal government (executive, legislative and judicial). At the state level, "clemency" is sometimes meant to be synonymous with "commutation." Thus "clemency" is used to release indivduals from prison. "Pardons" in such states are used to restore the civil rights of those who have already served their time.

COMMUTATION - A reduction in the severity of a punishment that is commonly confused with a pardon. Commutations reduce the length of a sentence or the amount of a fine. Perhaps the most high-profile commutations are those that change a death sentence to life in prison, or life in prison without the possibility of parole. Commutations can be controversial if the "reduction" is, arguably, not a reduction. Imagine a 2-year sentence being commuted to a $900,000 fine. Is that really a reduction in the severity of the punishment? Commutations can have conditions attached. Supreme Court decisions appear to suggest that commutations of sentence cannot be refused. Although there was a time when commutations were granted more frequently than pardons, they are very rarely granted today.

EXPUNGEMENT - Each state is free to define expungement as it pleases, but, generally, it referes to a process whereby records pertaining to a case are removed from the view of the public. In some instances, the records do not completely "disappear," but are available to law enforcement. States also routinely exempt certain offenses from the possibility of expungement. See also "sealing" (below)

PARDON - The removal of all disability or punishment. Pardons may be granted before or after conviction. Today, they are usually granted in order to restore civil rights (the right to vote, hold public office, participate in a jury, own a firearm, etc.). Pardons can have conditions attached. There has been a steady decline in the granting of pardons since 1900 whether one looks at the raw number of pardons, the percentage of applications that result in pardons or the percentage of presidential clemency decisions which result in pardons. There has, however, been a more accelerated decline since the late 1960s.

REMISSION - Most often, remissions were devices used to remove fines and forfeitures. In some instances, however, the word remit was used to simply remove (as opposed to reducing) a portion of a sentence. Today, federal clemency statistics do not even count remissions as a separate category of clemency decisions.

REPRIEVE - Delays the imposition of a punishment without reference to such issues as due process or the guilt or innocence of the accused. Sometimes used as a synonym for "stay." See Respite, below.

RESPITE - Delays the imposition of a punishment without reference to such issues as due process or the guilt or innocence of the accused. Typically, respites are granted for a specific number of days (30 to 60) but they have often been followed by additional respites and have also been granted in an entirely open-ended fashion (as in, "We will get back to you, when we can."). Today, the word "reprieve" is more likely to be used for an act of clemency that delays punishment.

SEALING - Each state is free to define sealing as it pleases, but, generally, it referes to a process whereby records pertaining to a case are removed from the view of the public. In some instances, the records do not completely "disappear," but are available to law enforcement. States also routinely exempt certain offenses from the possibility of sealing. See also "expungement" (above).

Sunday, December 14, 2014

Steve LeBlanc of the Associated Press has produced a piece re Mark Wahlberg's application for clemency which begins with the odd observation that the application "has focused fresh attention on excusing criminal acts." Odd, of course, because Mr. Wahlberg has served his time (45 days, back when he was 18 years old, in the 1980's). Wahlberg has not flaunted, bragged about / glorified his troubled past (as many do). He has expressed remorse repeatedly. A life-time of responsible, law-abiding behavior followed his conviction, as well as a world of charitable good works.

Mr. Wahlberg is not asking to be sprung from prison. He is not being asked to be declared "innocent." He is simply asking the state to officially recognize that which is beyond dispute - he is most certainly no longer the young punk that committed those criminal acts. To officially recognize responsibility, penitence and rehabilitation is not to "excuse" anything, in any sense of the language!

LeBlanc writes that it is "politically risky" for governors to grant pardons. But it appears even more risky for journalists to write about them! and for readers to read what they have written!

LeBlanc casually notes, for example, that

Massachusetts hasn’t approved a pardon in more than a decade. Republican Mitt Romney didn’t pardon anyone before he left as governor in 2007. Only now, in the twilight of his eight years in office, has Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick recommended any pardons.

And without a word of analysis, much less condemnation. Why have these governors neglected their constitutional duty? Why did they refuse to participate in the State's system of checks and balances? Has no deserving person existed in Massachusetts in decades? Really? Do such persons only exist in Arkansas? or Illinois? No comment from the AP. Nothing!

LeBlanc says Wahlberg's case "has touched off a firestorm of criticism nationwide" but fails to observe a large degree of this "criticism" has resulted from 1) his celebrity 2) his political disposition 3) false reports that he blinded one of his victims 4) the now boiler-plate desperation slander that a "hate crime" was committed and 5) the always present misconceptions of the public re the pardon power - misconceptions often resulting from irresponsible use of language by journalists.

The piece then says Wahlberg "underscores the bad politics that pardons can represent" because, for example, Mike Huckabee’s "presidential aspirations were fouled in part by pardons [including] one in 2000 of a felon who later killed four Seattle-area police officers. MEMO to Mr. LeBlanc, Huckabee did not "pardon" the criminal you have referred to.

It then says Tim Pawlenty "took flak for pardoning a Minnesota sex offender who was accused of reoffending in 2010" and "later withdrew from the race for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012." MEMO to LeBlanc, the "reoffending charges" were later dropped altogether and the individual had actually earned (by statute) a pardon by a State Board. Minnesota Governors do not even have the power to grant pardons unilaterally. Nonetheless, the point is well made: poor reporting (or fear / concern about it) can have an impact on public perceptions.

LeBlan then hops to a 1995 example, when a Massachusetts Governor commuted the sentence of a man who spent 23 years in jail for murder. MEMO to LeBlanc: This is comparable to Wahlberg's case? Seriously?

Journalists can do better. If pardons are "risky," it is largely so because journalists refuse to report on the topic in a professional, responsible and fair manner. Politicians certainly know this. And they are probably prone to be more concerned about public perceptions (shaped by the media) than they are the actual logistics of clemency decision making.